Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Management Practices of Pangasinan Credit Cooperatives in the Context of Collective Action and Governance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Management Practices of Pangasinan Credit Cooperatives in the Context of Collective Action and Governance

898
views

Published on

collective action; Cooperative Governance, Management Performance of Cooperatives; and Cooperatives and the Values of Public Administration

collective action; Cooperative Governance, Management Performance of Cooperatives; and Cooperatives and the Values of Public Administration

Published in: Business, Technology

1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • The effort in dedicating a study on Pangasinan Credit Cooperatives is somehow given push and prominence by no less a study initiated by Mr. Ed Gbargaye. May the maiden report be sustained by all other Pangasinanses .... wanting to be relevant in the Agenda of cooperative support and propagation. ...Finally, the accelerated momentum of the Pangasinan Government thru Governor Amado T. Espino, in his intense and inspired move of staging a grand funding though initial figure, surely would highlight very soon, and this will transform Pangasinan cooperativism in its form, operation and relevance ..... specifically, achieving empowerment to the household cooperative member (a home production unit - independent and truly strengthened.)
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
898
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Edwin B.R. Gbargaye October 2012 A Dissertation Management Performance of Pangasinan Credit Cooperatives in the Context of Collective Action and Good Governance NCPAG National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines
  • 2. My special acknowledgement and appreciation to my main supervisor, Dr. Vicente Mariano, for his supervision and assistance during my period of study. My panel chair, Dr. Edna Co for her suggestions and insightful ideas, Dr. Remigio Ocenar, my critic, for his suggestions to improve my dissertation, my panel member, Dr. Prospero de Vera, for helping me to refine my research methodology and my external panel member, Dr. Virginia Teodosio, for helping me justify the relevance of my dissertation to the cooperative movement in the Philippines. My gratitude to the Assistant Regional Director of the Cooperative Development Authority – Dagupan Extension Office and my former professor, Dr. Josefina B. Bitonio, for her valuable time and substantial comments in evaluating and enhancing my dissertation and Dr. Paulo Cenas for his time in doing my statistical analysis.
  • 3. Dedication This work is dedicated to my kids, Peace, Rose, Robertha, Edwin Jr., Danforth and Edmund. Without their love and encouragement, sacrifice and patience this could not happened. To my late mother, Rose, who is the inspiration that led me to education and, to my father Henry, whose persistent questioning and encouragement helped me to persevere. This is also dedicated to the cooperatives and cooperators of Pangasinan. Thank you very much!
  • 4. This is also dedicated to the cooperatives and cooperators of Pangasinan. Baleg ya Salamat!
  • 5. 1. Introduction 2. Background of the Study 3. Research Problem 4. Research Questions 5. Objectives of the Study 6. Locale of the Study 7. Conceptual Framework 8. Research methodology
  • 6. 9. Research Design 10. Sampling Design 11. Description of Sampling Areas (LGUs) 12. Research Instrument 13. Data Collection Techniques 14. Data Analysis Technique
  • 7. 15. Profile of the Respondents 16. Profile of the Cooperatives 17. Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) 18. Findings and Discussion a. Collective action b. Good governance c. Socio-economic and political factors d. Management performance (COOP PESOS) 19. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
  • 8. • Cooperatives continue to face numerous development challenges despite its commitment and dedication in advancing social and economic development of its constituents. • Cooperatives remain and it is a force to reckon with in creating employment opportunity and reducing poverty
  • 9. • Development start with people and their collective action and the application of good governance in managing these cooperatives. • Absence of these components, the cooperatives’ resources would remain latent, untapped and potentially unviable. • Cooperativism is deemed to be relevant in PA as a social development strategy aims to address the needs of the people.
  • 10. • The Philippine experience in the SRPA (RA 8425) • Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperative (PCFC) • NEDA (2002, 2004); reveals implementation of coop program as an economic and social development mechanism towards poverty alleviation.
  • 11. Status of Credit in Pangasinan from 2008-2011 (Table 1, p.38) • Note: Re-registration to RA 9520 started in July, 2009 CDA-DEO: 2011 FY Operating Cooperatives Percent Increased /Decreased Non Operating Cooperatives Dissolved, Cancelled and Delisted RA 9520, Art 144 (Failure to Re-Register) 2008 15 -58.33 4 Not applicable 2009 23 53.33 3 0 2010 75 69.33 11 0 2011 31 -58.66 0 12 Total 144 5.67 18 12
  • 12. General: What is assessment of the influence of cooperatives’ collective action, good governance, socio-economic and political factors in the management performance of credit cooperatives in Pangasinan? Specific: – What is the profile of the credit cooperatives in Pangasinan? – What is the extent of the credit cooperatives’ collective action?
  • 13. Specific: – What is the extent of the credit cooperatives’ collective action? – What is the level of governance being practiced by credit cooperatives along: transparency, accountability, predictability, and participation? – What are the effects of the social and political factors in terms of : socio-economic divide, government involvement, level of education and training in the management performance of credit cooperatives?
  • 14. Specific: – What is the level of management performance of the credit cooperatives as measure through collective action and good governance? – What is the relationship between collective action and good governance and how do these variables influence the management performance of credit coops? – What intervention measures can be proposed to enhance and sustain the management performance of credit cooperatives?
  • 15. General: To examine collectives’ collective action and good governance in the management performance of credit cooperatives in Pangasinan. Specific: – To be familiar with the profile of credit cooperative in terms of the following: year registered, total membership by gender, number of board of directors, number of employees, area of operation, and descriptions of the LGUs in which they operate
  • 16. – To identify and describe the extent of the credit cooperatives’ collective action relative to: steering capability, consensus building, resource mobilization and utilization and cooperation. – To establish the level of GG practices of the credit coops in terms of transparency, accountability, predictability and participation – To determine the extent of influence of the following social factors: socio-economic divide, political situation, government involvement and level of education and training in the management performance of credit cooperatives.
  • 17. – To determine the potentialities and constraints in the management performance of credit cooperatives based on collective action and good governance and socio-economic factors. – To identify the relationship of collective action and good governance and their influence to the management performance of credit cooperatives; and – To come up with intervention measures to improve and sustain the management performance among credit cooperatives.
  • 18. • Only 15 credit cooperatives in Pangasinan • Operating in the 6 political districts • Assets category (large, medium, small and micro). • From 2008-2011 • Respondents: 3 BODs, 3 staffs and 5 members
  • 19. • Pangasinan : west and central peripheral area of the island of Luzon along the Lingayen gulf. • Projected pop. (2010) 3,039,500. • Voting pop. 1,360,807 • Popular fiesta: Bangus festival • A gateway to northern Luzon • City: 4 • Municipality: 44 • Barangay: 1,364
  • 20. • Edwin B.R. Gbargaye • October 2012 Over the last century, cooperatives have played a significant and pivotal role in extenuating the concept of self initiative in the fight against capitalistic dominance and socio-economic disparities in neglected and backward communities affecting a cross section of the population. Conversely, the management of the said institution has not been excluded in the overarching problem of governance which translates into mismanagement, financial improprieties, and corruption. In spite of all the attempts of the government and other organizations in crafting policies, legislations, regulations, and rules of good governance and better management for the regulators to properly operate, manage and improve their organization still, management performance poses a serious and undaunted challenge in the collectivity of this social and economic institution. Over the last century, cooperatives have played a significant and pivotal role in extenuating the concept of self initiative in the fight against capitalistic dominance and socio-economic disparities in neglected and backward communities affecting a cross section of the population. Conversely, the management of the said institution has not been excluded in the overarching problem of governance which translates into mismanagement, financial improprieties, and corruption. In spite of all the attempts of the government and other organizations in crafting policies, legislations, regulations, and rules of good governance and better management for the regulators to properly operate, manage and improve their organization still, management performance poses a serious and undaunted challenge in the collectivity of this social and economic institution. Over the last century, cooperatives have played a significant and pivotal role in extenuating the concept of self initiative in the fight against capitalistic dominance and socio-economic disparities in neglected and backward communities affecting a cross section of the population. Conversely, the management of the said institution has not been excluded in the overarching problem of governance which translates into mismanagement, financial improprieties, and corruption. In spite of all the attempts of the government and other organizations in crafting policies, legislations, regulations, and rules of good governance and better management for the regulators to properly operate, manage and improve their organization still, management performance poses a serious and undaunted challenge in the collectivity of this social and economic institution.
  • 21. Socio -Economic and Political Factors  Socio-economic divide Political situation  Government involvement Level of Education and Training
  • 22. • Descriptive survey research • Survey questionnaire • Focus group discussions • Documentary analysis
  • 23. Small P 3M – P15illion 4 Cooperatives Medium P15- P100M 4 Cooperatives Large Above P100 Million 3 Cooperatives Micro Below P 3Million 4 Cooperatives Surveyed: 15 credit cooperatives Tract record: 3 years experience in business operation
  • 24. Description of the Areas Large : (Calasiao, Lingayen and San Carlos City) Medium: Alaminos, Pozorrubio, Urdaneta and San Carlos City Small: Balungao, Bugallon, Mapandan and Sison Micro: Anda, Basista, Bugallon and Mangaldan
  • 25. Distribution of Respondents by total Assets and LGUs (Table 13, p. 197) Category by Million Pesos City/Municipality Population (N) Sample (n) Respondents BOD Staff Members Large (>100M) Calasiao (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Lingayen (2nd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 San Carlos (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Medium (>15M to 100M) Alaminos (1st Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Pozzorubio (4th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 San Carlos (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Urdaneta (5th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Small (>3M to 15M) Balungao (6th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Bugallon (2nd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Mapandan (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Sison (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Micro (3M and below) Anda (1st Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Bugallon (2nd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Sta. Barbara (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Mangaldan (4th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5 Total 15 15 45 45 75
  • 26. Location Description & Population Number of Barangays No of Cooperative No of Cooperative Respondents Calasiao 1st class municipality. According to the latest census, it has a population of 85,419 people with 15,020 households. Calasiao is politically subdivided into 24 barangays. 15 1 Lingayen 1st class municipality..It is the capital municipality and the seat of government of the province of Pangasinan. According to the latest census, it has a population of 95,773 people in 16,467 households Lingayen is politically subdivided into 32 barangays 18 1 San Carlos San Carlos City is a third class. According to the latest census, it has a population of 161,884 people in 28,025 households. San Carlos City is politically subdivided into 86 barangays 34 1 Profile of LGUs (Table 14, p.199-201) Large Cooperative -Respondents P100 M assets and Above (2007 census)
  • 27. Medium Cooperative -Respondents P15-100 M Assets (2007 census) Location Description & Population Number of Barangays No of Cooperative No of Cooperative Respondents Alaminos 4th class city. According to the latest census, it has a population of 79,788 people in 15,527 households politically subdivided into 39 barangays 17 1 Pozorrubio 1st class municipality. According to the latest census, it has a population of 63,689 people in 11,288 households politically subdivided into 34 barangays 12 1 Urdaneta 2nd class city. According to the latest census, it has a population of 120,785 people in 22,908 households politically subdivided into 34 barangays 30 1 San Carlos San Carlos City is a third class. According to the latest census, it has a population of 161,884 people in 28,025 households. San Carlos City is politically subdivided into 86 barangays 34 1
  • 28. Small Credit Cooperative -Respondents above P 3-15M Assets (2007 census) Location Description & Population Number of Barangays No of Cooperative No of Cooperative Respondents Bugallon 3rd class municipality According to the latest census, it has a population of 62,237 people in 10,614 households politically subdivided into 24 barangays 11 1 Sison 3rd class municipality. According to 2007 census it has a population of 43,051 people in households unknown Politically sub- divided into 28 barangays 11 1 Mapandan 3rd class municipality. According to the latest census, it has a population of 32,905 people in 5,751 households. politically subdivided into 15 barangays 12 1 Balungao 4th class income classification with a total population 25,214 politically subdivided into 20 19 1 Small Credit Cooperative -Respondents above P 3-15M Assets (2007 census)
  • 29. Micro Cooperative -Respondents below 3M Assets (2007 census) Location Description & Population Number of Barangays No of Cooperative No of Cooperative Respondents Anda 3rd class municipality.. According to the latest census, it has a population of 32,905 people in 5,751 households. politically subdivided into 15 barangays 3 1 Mangaldan 1st class municipality. It is near the cities of Dagupan. It is in the 4th congressional district of Pangasinan politically subdivided into 31 barangays 15 1 Basista 5th class municipality. Famous for its cottage According to the latest census, it has a population of 28,104 people in 4,871 households politically subdivided into 13 barangays 4 1 Bugallon 3rd class municipality According to the latest census, it has a population of 62,237 people in 10,614 households politically subdivided into 24 barangays 11 1 Micro Cooperative -Respondents below 3M Assets (2007 census)
  • 30. Data Collection • Research Instrument: Four-tier questionnaire (please see annex 12, p.263) – Part 1: indicators of Collective Action (CA) – Part 11: indicators of Good Governance (GG) – Part 111: Social, Economics and Political Factors (SEPF) – Part 1v: Management Performance (MP) • Questions Guide: FGD (6 Coops from 6 selected districts with all representation • Focus on intervening variables
  • 31. Data Analysis Technique • Analyses was done qualitatively • Quantitative data was interpreted using frequency, percentage and simple averages. • Responses were Likert scales (1 (Very Poor),2 (Poor) ,3 (Satisfactory), 4 (Good), 5 (Excellent))/ 1 (Not At All), 2 (Slight Extent), 3 (Great Extent), 5 (Very Great Extent) • Its considered by this study as Ordinal • Cross tabulations of the categories was performed for the relationship of the level of MP with CA, GG and SEPF.
  • 32. Profile of Respondents Profile of cooperatives covered: year registered, total membership by gender, number of board of directors, number of employees, total assets and area of operation, and description of the LGUs.
  • 33. • Large coops : P 100 Million and above. • 3 Coops : Calasiao (Dist. III, 1st class municipality, male (78%) • Lingayen (Dist. II, 1st class Municipality, female (62%) • San Carlos City (Dist. III, 3rd class LGU, female (67%) Large Cooperative
  • 34. Profile of the Large Cooperatives (Table 17, p.211) Name and Address of the Cooperative Year Regis- tered Membership by Gender No. of the BOD No. of Emplo yees Area of Operation Total Assets Description of LGU Male Female CPRCECC Calasiao, Pangasinan 1975 1154 320 15 8 Nationwide 197,965,926.59 Dist III, Ist Class LCCrC, Lingayen, Pangasinan 1965 5000 8094 9 19 Dist II 220,478,395.89 Dist II, 1st Class CFCC, San Carlos City 1975 1153 2340 7 15 City of San Carlos 115,285,660.00 Dist III 3rd Class TOTAL 7307 10754 31 42 533,729,982.48
  • 35. Medium Cooperatives • Assets : P15-100 Million. • 4 coops • Urdaneta (Dist. V, 2ND class LGU, Male (77%) • Alaminos (Dist. I, 4th class LGU, Female (68%) • Pozzorubio (Dist. V, Ist class LGU, Female (81%) • San Carlos (Dist III, 3rd class LGU, Female (82%) Medium Cooperatives
  • 36. Profile of Medium Credit Cooperatives (Table 18, 212) Name and Address of the Cooperative Year Registered Membership by Gender No. of the BOD No. of emplo yees Area of Operation Total Assets Description of LGU Male Female PSCC, Urdaneta City 2009 638 1,691 7 5 Provincial 17,689, 685.19 Dist 5 2nd Class ASCC, Alaminos City 1986 370 812 5 5 City wide 19,269, 430.64 Dist 1 4th Class PMVCC, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan 1986 84 372 5 6 Municipal 17,774, 321.91 Dist 5 Ist Class SCCTSCC San Carlos City 1991 197 902 7 5 City of San Carlos 21,005, 432.13 Dist 3 3rd Class Total 1,289 3,777 24 21 75,738, 869.87
  • 37. • Assets: P3-15Million; 4 coops • Bugallon, Dist II, 3rd class LGU, Female (59%) • Balungao, Dist V, 4th class LGU, Female (59%) • Sison, Dist V, 3rd class LGU, Female (71%) • Mapandan, Dist III, 3rd class LGU, Female (72%) Small Cooperatives
  • 38. Profile of the Small Credit Cooperatives (Table 19, p.214) Name and Address of Cooperative Year Regist ered Membership by Gender No. of the BOD No. of emplo yees Area of Operation Total Assets Descript ion of LGUMale Female BMECC Bugallon, Pangasinan 2004 41 83 5 4 Municipal 3,778,808.95 Dist 2, 3rd Class GCC Mapandan, Pangasinan 1986 530 1,332 7 5 Municipal 6,687,469.76 Dist 3, 3rd Class MWCC Balungao, Pangasinan 2006 88 129 5 5 Municipal 3,518,225.53 Dist. 5, 4th Class SCC Sison, Pangasinan 1987 150 378 7 5 Municipal 4,826,000.00 Dist 5, 3rd Class Total 809 1,922 24 19 15,292,278.71
  • 39. • Assets: P3 Million and below. 4 Coops • Mangaldan, Dist III, 1st class LGU Female (72%) • Anda, Dist 1, 1st class LGU Female (64%) • Sta Barbara, Dist III, 1st class LGU Male (69%) • Bugallon, Dist II, 3rd class LGU Female (70%) Micro Cooperatives
  • 40. Summary of the CA Indicators • Majority of the Respondents acknowledged BODs’ steering capability as “good”. • Consensus building has the same pattern as “good” notably, large was rated “poor”. • Resource Mobilization & Utilization respondents rated above “satisfactory” performance • Respondents rated “Cooperation” as “satisfactory”
  • 41. Average Response Per Cooperative on CA (in %) (Table 31, p.256) Rating Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Cooperative Steering Capability Large 0 1 7 60 32 Medium 0 0 14 48 38 Small 0 4.2 9.4 54.2 32.3 Micro 0 0 9.4 59.4 31.2 Consensus Building Large 0 1 5.5 64 29.5 Medium 0 0 9.4 60.4 30.2 Small 0 0 25 50 25 Micro 0 0 11.5 60.4 28.1 Resource Mobilization and Utilization Large 0 0 18 40.3 41.7 Medium 0 0 20.8 49 30.2 Small 0 0 21.9 55.2 22.9 Micro 0 0 16.7 45.8 37.5 Cooperation Large 0 7.1 13.1 54.5 25.3 Medium 0 0 12 56 32 Small 0 0.8 25.7 48.5 25 Micro 0 2.3 25.7 42.4 29.6
  • 42. Average per Response Category for all Cooperatives Per CA Components (in %) (Table 32, p.259) Cooperative Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Large 0 1.3 9.9 55.3 33.5 Medium 0 0.2 12.9 58.7 28.2 Small 0 0 19.5 47.5 33 Micro 0 2.6 19.1 50.3 28 Overall 0 1.1 15.3 53 30.6
  • 43. Average Response Per Cooperative on GG (in %) (Table 33, p.264) Rating Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Cooperative Transparency Large 0 17.1 60.7 22.2 Medium 0 2.2 7.5 58.3 32 Small 0 3.7 16 53.8 26.5 Micro 0 1.5 14.5 52 32 Accountability Large 0 0 13.2 53.5 33.3 Medium 0 1.5 15.2 52.3 31 Small 0 0.8 19.7 44.7 34.8 Micro 0 0 13.7 58.3 28 Predictability Large 0 1 21.2 39.4 38.4 Medium 0 0 12.1 49.2 38.7 Small 0 0.8 19.7 43.9 35.6 Micro 0 0.8 12.8 45.4 41 Participation Large 0 1.8 29.6 48.1 20.5 Medium 0 4 20.8 47.2 28 Small 0 0 18 50 32 Micro 1.4 9.5 15.2 33.3 40.6
  • 44. Average Response for all Cooperatives on the Elements of GG (Table 34, p. 266) Elements of Governance Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Transparency 0 2 13.7 56.2 28.1 Accountability 0 0.5 15.5 52.2 31.8 Predictability 0 0.7 16.5 44.4 38.4 Participation 0.3 3.8 20.9 44.6 30.2 Overall 0.7 1.7 16.6 49 32
  • 45. Average Response per Cooperative Category on the SEPF (Table 35, p. 275) Rating No Extent at all Slight Extent Moderate Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent Cooperative Socio Economic Divide Large 38.4 13.1 27.3 17.2 4 Medium 36 26 14 17 7 Small 21 42 33 3 1 Micro 42 23 10 13 12 Political Situation Large 46.46 15.16 19.2 14.3 5.06 Medium 49.23 20.4 12.9 15.16 2.2 Small 43.96 34.83 15.16 4.5 1.5 Micro 48.5 18.1 21.2 5.2 6.8 Government Involvement Large 5 12.1 27.3 43.4 12.13 Medium 3 9.8 26.5 46.2 14.36 Small 2.5 9.4 36.8 38.8 12.3 Micro 5.3 19.7 25 25 25 Level of Education and Training Large 0 5 17.2 54.3 23.2 Medium 1.5 5 13.1 48.7 31.5 Small 1.5 6 41.7 26.5 24.3 Micro 0 7.1 16.1 42.4 34.3
  • 46. Average Response Per Indicator of SEPF for all Cooperatives (Table 36, p. 277) Indicators of Socio- Economic and Political factors No Extent at All Slight Extent Moderate Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent Socio-Economic Divide 42 23 10 13 12 Political Situation 48.5 18.1 21.2 5.2 7 Government Involvement 4 13 29 38.5 15.2 Level of Education and Training 0.8 5.7 22 43 28.3
  • 47. Responses Per Cooperative Category on MP (Table 37, p. 295)Rating Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Cooperative Compliance for Administrative and Legal Requirements Large 0 1.4 21.1 50.2 27.3 Medium 0 1 19 47 33 Small 0 1 16.7 48.5 34 Micro 0 0 22.7 56.8 21 Organizational Structure and Linkages Large 0 0 16.1 41.4 42.4 Medium 0 4.5 15.9 48.5 31 Small 0 8.3 31 43.1 17.4 Micro 6 7 25.7 47 14.3 Operation and Management Large 0 1 19.2 46.5 33.3 Medium 0 0.8 16.6 48.5 34.1 Small 0 23 57 20 Micro 0 3.8 26 49 21.2 Plans and program Large 0 3 21.2 40.4 35.4 Medium 1.5 0.8 19.7 54.5 23.5 Small 28 53.8 18.2 Micro 4.5 6.5 22 48 19
  • 48. Portfolio Quality Large 0 0 31.3 41.5 27.2 Medium 2.3 0.8 19 52.2 25.7 Small 0 0 28 63 9 Micro 8.3 27.3 54 10.4 Efficiency Large 1 9.1 57.6 32.3 32.3 Medium 2.3 19 53 25.7 25.7 Small 26 52 22 22 Micro 2 30 43 25 25 Effectiveness Large 0 16.2 55.5 28.3 28.3 Medium 3 13.5 51.5 32 32 Small 0.7 24 51 24.3 24.3 Micro 4.5 23 44.5 28 28 Stability Large 0 0 19.2 47.5 33.3 Medium 0 7 25.7 39.3 28 Small 0 2.2 24.2 59.1 14.5 Micro 0 2 28 62 8 Operation Large 0 0 20 50 30 Medium 0 0.8 23.5 50 25.7 Small 0 2 30 54 14 Micro 1 4.5 26.5 54.5 13.5 Structure of Assets Large 0 0 16 56 28 Medium 0 0 24 53 23 Small 0 5.3 27.3 40.1 27.3 Micro 0 3 26 51 20
  • 49. Average Response for All Cooperatives on MP (Table 38, p.300) Indicators/Items Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Compliance 0 1.4 21 50.2 27.1 Organizational Structure and Linkages 2 5 22 45 26 Operations and Management 0 2 21 50 27 Plans and Programs 1.5 2.6 22.7 49.1 24 Portfolio Quality 0.6 2 26.4 53 18 Efficiency 0 1.3 21.1 51.4 26.2 Effectiveness 0 2 19 51 28 Stability 0 2.8 24.2 52 21 Operations 0.2 1.8 25 52 21 Structure of Assets 0 2 23 50 25 0.4 2 23 50.3 24.3
  • 50. Collective Action by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives Collective action MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Poor Count 1 1 0 2 % of Total 3.0% 3.0% .0% 6.1% Satisfactory Count 0 4 0 4 % of Total .0% 12.1% .0% 12.1% Good Count 0 13 4 17 % of Total .0% 39.4% 12.1% 51.5% Excellent Count 0 6 4 10 % of Total .0% 18.2% 12.1% 30.3% Total Count 1 24 8 33 % of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0 % (Table 39, p. 302)
  • 51. (Table 40, p. 303) Collective Action by Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives COLLECTIVE ACTION MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 1 4 0 5 % of Total 2.3% 9.1% .0% 11.4% Good Count 2 24 3 29 % of Total 4.5% 54.5% 6.8% 65.9% Excellent Count 0 2 8 10 % of Total .0% 4.5% 18.2% 22.7% Total Count 3 30 11 44 % of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%
  • 52. Collective Action by Management Performance for Small Cooperatives (Table 41, p. 303) COLLECTIVE ACTION MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE Satisfactory Good Excellent Total Satisfactory Count 8 0 1 9 % of Total 18.2% .0% 2.3% 20.5% Good Count 3 21 1 25 % of Total 6.8% 47.7% 2.3% 56.8% Excellent Count 0 8 2 10 % of Total .0% 18.2% 4.5% 22.7% Total Count 11 29 4 44 % of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0%
  • 53. Collective Action by Level of Management Performance for Micro Cooperatives (Table 42, p. 304) COLLECTIVE_ACTION MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 1 5 0 6 % of Total 2.3% 11.4% .0% 13.6% Good Count 4 18 3 25 % of Total 9.1% 40.9% 6.8% 56.8% Excellent Count 1 6 6 13 % of Total 2.3% 13.6% 13.6% 29.5% Total Count 6 29 9 44 % of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%
  • 54. (Table 43, p.305) Good Governance by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives Good Governance MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 1 2 0 3 % of Total 3.0% 6.1% .0% 9.1% Good Count 0 18 3 21 % of Total .0% 54.5% 9.1% 63.6% Excellent Count 0 4 5 9 % of Total .0% 12.1% 15.2% 27.3% Total Count 1 24 8 33 % of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0%
  • 55. (Table 44, p. 306) Good Governance by level of Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives Good Governance MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 1 2 0 3 % of Total 2.3% 4.5% .0% 6.8% Good Count 2 28 0 30 % of Total 4.5% 63.6% .0% 68.2% Excellent Count 0 0 11 11 % of Total .0% .0% 25.0% 25.0% Total Count 3 30 11 44 % of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%
  • 56. (Table 45, pp 306-307) Good Governance by Management Performance for Small Cooperatives Good Governance MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 6 0 0 6 % of Total 13.6% .0% .0% 13.6% Good Count 5 19 1 25 % of Total 11.4% 43.2% 2.3% 56.8% Excellent Count 0 10 3 13 % of Total .0% 22.7% 6.8% 29.5% Total Count 11 29 4 44 % of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0%
  • 57. (Table 46, pp 307) Good Governance by Management Performance for Micro Cooperatives Good Governance MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 3 1 0 4 % of Total 6.8% 2.3% .0% 9.1% Good Count 3 20 3 26 % of Total 6.8% 45.5% 6.8% 59.1% Excellent Count 0 8 6 14 % of Total .0% 18.2% 13.6% 31.8% Total Count 6 29 9 44 % of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%
  • 58. (Table 47, pp 307) Social Economic and Political Factors by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives SOCIO ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent No Extent at all Count 0 10 1 11 % of Total .0% 30.3% 3.0% 33.3% Slight Extent Count 1 4 0 5 % of Total 3.0% 12.1% .0% 15.2% Moderate Extent Count 0 4 2 6 % of Total .0% 12.1% 6.1% 18.2% Great Extent Count 0 6 2 8 % of Total .0% 18.2% 6.1% 24.2% Very Great extent Count 0 0 3 3 % of Total .0% .0% 9.1% 9.1% Total Count 1 24 8 33 % of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0%
  • 59. (Table 48 pp 309) Social Economic and Political Factor by Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent No Extent at all Count 1 5 6 12 % of Total 2.3% 11.4% 13.6% 27.3% Slight Extent Count 0 5 1 6 % of Total .0% 11.4% 2.3% 13.6% Moderate Extent Count 2 12 0 14 % of Total 4.5% 27.3% .0% 31.8% Great Extent Count 0 7 1 8 % of Total .0% 15.9% 2.3% 18.2% Very Great Extent Count 0 1 3 4 % of Total .0% 2.3% 6.8% 9.1% Total Count 3 30 11 44 % of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%
  • 60. Table 49, pp 310 Social Economic and Political Factor by Management Performance for Small Cooperatives SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent No Extent at all Count 1 6 1 8 % of Total 2.3% 13.6% 2.3% 18.2% Slight Extent Count 4 5 0 9 % of Total 9.1% 11.4% .0% 20.5% Moderate Extent Count 6 8 2 16 % of Total 13.6% 18.2% 4.5% 36.4% Great Extent Count 0 8 0 8 % of Total .0% 18.2% .0% 18.2% Very Great Extent Count 0 2 1 3 % of Total .0% 4.5% 2.3% 6.8% Total Count 11 29 4 44 % of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0 %
  • 61. (Table 50, pp 311) Social Economic and Political Factors by Management Performance for Micro Cooperatives SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent No Extent at all Count 0 10 6 16 % of Total .0% 22.7% 13.6% 36.4% Slight Extent Count 2 5 1 8 % of Total 4.5% 11.4% 2.3% 18.2% Moderate Extent Count 2 6 1 9 % of Total 4.5% 13.6% 2.3% 20.5% Great Extent Count 2 2 1 5 % of Total 4.5% 4.5% 2.3% 11.4% Very Great Extent Count 0 6 0 6 % of Total .0% 13.6% .0% 13.6% Total Count 6 29 9 44 % of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%
  • 62. Overall Results of the Study Variables Categories of the Cooperatives Large Medium Small Micro Collective Action Good Good Good Good Good Governance Good Good Good Good Social, Economic and Political Factors Moderate Extent Moderate Extent Moderate Extent Moderate Extent Management Performance Good Good Good Good
  • 63. Conclusions 1. The respondents of the study (large, medium, small and micro credit cooperatives) have broader female constituents, categorized according to asset size with residential as the common bond of membership with municipal wide area of operation. 2. They all manifested high degree of collective action within the cooperative with medium coops excelling in consensus building and cooperation aspects of collective action. The large coops are high in steering capability and the small coops are prominent in resource mobilization and utilization of resources.
  • 64. • The cooperatives worked very well in the steering capability, consensus building and cooperation except in their resource mobilization and utilization of resources. • The members of the credit cooperatives in Pangasinan show satisfaction in the GG practices by the BODs with large coops as the most transparent and with high level of participation.
  • 65. • Micro cooperatives showed high accountability and medium cooperatives proven as more predictable. • All cooperatives excelled are transparent and accountable however, they have to improve their performance in terms of predictability and participation aspects of GG.
  • 66. • There is no socio-economic divide with all cooperatives giving a fair access to their resources and services and with political situation conducive to their growth and stability without interference or pressures, where government involvement is very much welcome and where cooperatives put premium on education and training.
  • 67. • The credit cooperatives performed good in the eight MP indicators (COOP-PESOS), however, organizational structure and linkages, and plans and programs were found to be weak in their compliance. • Large cooperatives excelling in efficiency, effectiveness, and structure of assets, medium cooperatives at their best in compliance to admin and legal requirements, organizational structure and linkages, and plans and programs. • Small cooperatives performing well in organization and management and portfolio quality and micro cooperatives were better performers in stability and operations.
  • 68. • In terms of CA by MP , the medium cooperatives have the strongest relationship between the two variables as compared to the other cooperative categories. • It seems that MP is dependent on CA. • The findings revealed that credit cooperatives in Pangasinan have “good “ MP in relation to CA. • There is a relationship b/w GG and MP.
  • 69. Recommendations The credit coops should formulate a long term plan to transform themselves and migrate upstream simultaneously from micro to small size category; from small to medium size category; from medium to large size coops; large size to globally competitive cooperative. (Please turn to the Manuscript on page 331 for the Intervention Measures.)
  • 70. • The large coops have a vast experience and are armed with a wealth of management expertise that they are very much ready to operationalize branches or satellite offices within or outside Pangasinan as there are a lot of municipalities with limited cooperatives serving the population. • There is a need for the coops to federate to strengthen themselves in the horizontal and vertical position in the province business arena as well as maximize their economies of scale.
  • 71. • To encourage the large, medium and small cooperatives to conduct research on their levels to appraise the responsiveness of their policies and also to know the members’ satisfaction on their services. • The weaknesses identified in the study can be addressed by the proposed intervention measures. (See Table 51, p. 338)
  • 72. Further Studies • It is recommended that further researches are needed to find out the extent to which each of the independent variables in this study affects management performance in other types of coops in Pangasinan so as to exactly classify the major and critical factors influencing MP .
  • 73. • This kind of study must be conducted in other areas in the country in order to ascertain the role of collective action and good governance in the management performance of credit cooperatives. Further Studies
  • 74. • Cooperatives should formulate their own appraisal or performance evaluation tools to be used as management tool in order to improve the efficient, effective and economical and responsive way of managing their cooperatives, which are the goals in PA. • Cooperatives attuning to PA goals would redound to the benefits of their members this is akin to public service where the objective is client satisfaction. The study’s contribution to PA
  • 75. • Cooperatives have proven themselves as socio economic organization that help in poverty reduction programs and upholding the goals in administration of development where people are empowered and have the capacity to help the government in improving lives. The study’s contribution to PA
  • 76. The study’s contribution to PA • PA in the study calls for the strengthening of civil society as active participants to the country’s development where civil society is strong and can propelled themselves to become contributor to local and national development.
  • 77. Pre-testing of the Instruments at Agoo, La Union Bayanihan CC CCLU LUL MPC
  • 78. My cardinal objective in coming to the Philippines is to be educated as I foresee myself to be a prime mover in our country’s development. It was not an easy journey leaving a family behind for almost 8 years achieving (2) MS and (1) Doctoral Programs. My family will be prouder that I am the most educated in my family and they cant wait to see me soon and I am on them also. I must say, Filipinos have been helpful in this endeavor – to everybody here, my deepest thanks for the guidance, learning and friendship. It will be forever etched in my heart that UP shaped me for what I am today and I will make sure UP will be proud of me for what I will become in the future.